2 guys here, both good looking, seeking a female to help with a fantacy: [sic]

Although we're both straight, both of us love anal with toys, so we want to get a double headed dildo & lay on our backs facing away from each other...slide the dildo into both our butts until our balls touch, our cocks rock hard & pointing up...then you come over & squat down on them, taking one in each hole...

I've never seen or heard of this being done, so its experimental & need an open minded woman to make it happen....would be cool too if you wanted to fuck us both with a strap-on.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Actually i find your snark to label them as "gay" more ludicrous than you seem to find their self-identification. I see two people being upfront in what they are asking for- sex involving more than one gender. That is hardly being in the closet, no matter what they choose to identify as. That they identify as "straight" says to me that they do not relate to "gay" culture and therefore do not see themselves as "gay". Sounds like they are pretty in touch with what they want and are not afraid to ask for it. This is a closet? Plenty of people are attracted to and have sex with more than one gender... without wearing a "gay" label. For anybody to say "you are gay and just confused" is every bit as offensive and harmful as the groups that are trying to convince people that they are "really straight, just confused".

The only denial i see here is that of existence outside a nice little binary world.

I agree with mykill here. Even if we're going to start identifying them without regard to self-identification, they are obviously not gay, but would be bi. They do seem to share an attraction, but an attraction to one person of one gender does not negate attraction to people of another gender. i.e. being a kinsey 1 is a far cry from "omg so gay!"

Of course, all that is just a thought experiement, as they identify themselves as straight and there's no reason to think they are being untruthful with themselves or others. Liking anal penetration and not being afraid of physical contact with another man in a threeway is not inherently gay. In fact, it's how I'd expect more straight people to act as homophobia lessens. Many have pointed out that anti-homophobia and sex-positiveness that the queer community engages in is our gift to the straight world. This appears to me as proof that our gift is being appreciated.

I agree with Mykill and Tobi too. Fact of the matter is, most men like anal stimulation--its got a biological basis. I know several straight guys that discovered--after they dealt with their own discomfort and preconceived notions--that they LOVE anal play, especially if delivered from a girl they love. One of my best friends in the world is a straight guy who took some time getting used to me being gay. One day (over tacos no less) he breaks into confession about this bisexual girl we both know who he had been seeing.

"I've always loved 'tossing the salad,' [oh straight boys are so cute when they're trying to be polite, aren't they?] but I never let any girls do that to me. The other day ***** talked me into it, and it was AWESOME! I loved it. I've been asking for it every day since!"

Awww. Another straight boy realizes that sex can be more than quick lackluster humping in the missionary position!

"That they identify as "straight" says to me that they do not relate to "gay" culture and therefore do not see themselves as "gay"."

This is a pretty interesting sentence, that brings up all kinds of questions. I didn't realize that if you don't do whatever it is that constitutes the "gay culture" you aren't gay. Even if you only have sex with your same sex? Should I then say I'm straight, even though I only have sex with other guys? I'm genuinely curious about this. What do other people think? I hadn't thought about this before. Should we develop a new word for guys who sleep with only other guys but don't identify with anything "gay"? I know I sound a bit snarky, but I'm really throwing this out because it caused me to think differently.

Here is another sentence that makes me think.

"Plenty of people are attracted to and have sex with more than one gender... without wearing a "gay" label."

First question. What's wrong with having a gay label? I guess this is the same as in the sentence above. Having someone think you are gay means more than just who you sleep with, but how you live all other aspects of your life?

Thank you for your kind questions (which i did not see at all as snarky), i will try to clarify what i was saying. Please notice i was defending the cl posters' right to identify how they choose, i was not presuming what they "are" or "are not" - nor would i dare to presume how you should identify. I was referring to the predominate image of a gay culture perpetuated by both mainstream media (Will and Grace) and lgbt media (The Advocate), as well as the party culture seen in gay neighborhoods like the Castro. Many people do not want to identify with that image (regardless of its validity - and i think it is incredibly invalid) and choose a word they feel better describes themselves. In a country full of binary labels (gay/straight, republican/democrat, etc), someone who does not feel they fit the dominant image of a gay man (again, regardless of the validity of that image) may well choose to identify as straight by default. Some people refuse to accept a label at all realizing the limitations it includes.

As to the second sentence you asked about, please do not think i meant anything was "wrong" with having a gay label - as long as it is a self-applied term. I was referring to the fact that some people are bi-, omni-, pan-, ambi-sexual and have attractions to more than one gender. As long as the generally accepted definition of "gay" is someone that is attracted to the same sex only, that term is not accurate to describe someone that is attracted to a wider spectrum of gender. As Tobi pointed out, attraction to one gender does not exclude attraction to another gender.

Why do they have to identify as gay? I have a female friend who is straight and we talk about everything. In fact she told me that her boyfriend figured out that he enjoyed a little finger action when receiving a blow job. He eventually asked her to use her dildo on him.

Does that make him gay that he wants a little anal action from a woman? Does it make him bi because he likes some anal fun? I don't think either label is correct because he has no desire to have a man do that to him. It's a matter of dominance and submission between him and my friend.

Something along the same line could be said about these two guys.

Although I am curious how do two straight guys discover that they both enjoy using toys like that? Of course being a Craigslist advert there's a lot we don't know. It's always possible they are a bi couple and just want to invite a woman in for the occasional 3-way.

Should we develop a new word for guys who sleep with only other guys but don't identify with anything "gay"?

We actually already do: MSM or Men who have Sex with Men. Although, should you start identifying with it? Probably not. At least not unless you want to.

There's nothing wrong with having a gay label, but it's not helpful forcing it on people who don't fit it any more than trying to force "straight" onto folks who don't fit that is. Especially when you're talking about people who "are attracted to and have sex with more than one gender. I wouldn't deny them a gay label if they wanted, but it seems like bi or some derivative like pan or queer would be more appropriate.

Plenty of gays and lesbians have sex with people of the opposite sex. Sometimes it's distant past, sometimes it's extremely rare or just under certain circumstances, sometimes it's a secret they don't tell friends. But if you have sex 40 times a year and one or two of them is with someone of the opposite sex, would you say that person is no longer gay? Similarly, if a straight person has sex once or twice a year with someone of the same sex, that doesn't mean they are a closet case.

For all of this, I see culture as playing a role, but not being the defining role. But because there are so many different LGBTQ sub-cultures, not identifying with mainstream gays does not preclude identifying with any number of other sub-groups, many of which have their own language. I'd never call myself gay. Queer, dyke, or pansexual, sure, but not gay. Lesbian is an iffy one, I avoid it if I can.

"Should we develop a new word for guys who sleep with only other guys but don't identify with anything "gay"?

We actually already do: MSM or Men who have Sex with Men. Although, should you start identifying with it? Probably not. At least not unless you want to."

Well, I would think MSM applies to guys who are straight for all intents and purposes, but still sleep with guys on the side. As opposed to bisexuals who sleep with both sexes. (I would think both terms are different, MSM vs Bisexual, but they sound alike?)

I'm talking about guys that only sleep with other guys, but don't identify with the "Gay" culture. Guys like me. I identify as gay.

"Why do they have to identify as gay? I have a female friend who is straight and we talk about everything. In fact she told me that her boyfriend figured out that he enjoyed a little finger action when receiving a blow job. He eventually asked her to use her dildo on him."

I would never say that what you like to do in bed makes you gay or straight. Only WHO you do it with in bed.

What caused me to start posting was just that I hadn't thought before as identifying myself as anything but Gay because I sleep only with guys. But I don't do anything with the "Culture of Gay". So now I'm thinking about myself in a different way. This has kind of opened some new ideas. I wanted to generate some discussion of this, thanks for responding.

Ahh, that makes a lot of sense. In that case, you're looking at a bunch of terminology with meanings that will often vary geographically. There's the queer not gay folks, the dyke not lesbian folks, the pansexual not bisexual folks, the lesbian-identified-bisexuals, the boi-dykes, the girlfags, bykes and trykes, heteroflexible, homoflexible, and many more.

Some terms are designed to communicate specific behavior or sexual identity, others are more about a political identification, or a cultural identification. Though I've noticed a bit of a pendulum swing going on when it comes to specific vs generic terms. Gloria and Phil suggest just using queer for everyone -- an idea I like. However, we used to have a generic umbrella term for anyone queer in one way or another, it was "gay." But it also had specific connotations and people felt the need to include other terms to feel included. Other people felt left out of those newly added terms, and so on until we get a very long alphabet soup, LGBTQQIP, or GLITTERFAB.

The trend is back toward one unifying term, however there are still times when "queer" carries assumptions that leave people out. Like the woman flirting with a guy who tells him she's queer and then he assumes she isn't interested and leaves. Or the opposite-sex couple who show up to a queer event and are given dirty looks as if they don't belong. Or the straight trans people who want to be recognized as a part of the space but really aren't queer. No matter the unifying term, some folks will still feel left out of it. My approach is to be aware of and be able to use both the specific and the unifying terms (sidenote: a philosophy that applies to a certain recent very long comment thread).

We are mixing political and scientific terms though (even though there's grey area). Bisexuality is both a political and scientific term (scholarly work has been produced on measuring and reporting on aspects of bisexuality). Gay is a political self-identification term. I am TECHNICALLY bisexual--I can have sex with and fall in love with both sexes. However, I have EMBRACED a very GAY identity--I have mostly 'gay' friends, my freetime is spent primarily in 'gay' activism, so on.

MSM can fall in love with another man, certainly, but they do not embrace a 'gay' identity--usually they shudder from such. This is usually because of hang-ups and preconceived notions. A lot of men who are GAY now started out LOATHING the label gay.

Many MSM may call themselves 'straight.' However, for all intents and purposes, 'straight' really means HETEROSEXUAL, so this happens as a matter of discomfort really.

Ultimately, labels are stupid because what people call themselves is rarely what they really are. I call myself gay, but I'm really bisexual, but I haven't had sex with a woman in well over half a decade and my last five relationships, totaling over 7 years of time dating were all with men, so I'm homosexual in behavior...

Ugh, fuck labels, we're all queer. Every last one of us. Straight boys like it up the butt, but get soft at the thought of dicks and testosterone and hairy knuckles. Gay guys often can't bear the thought of vagina but absolutely adore boobs. I've never met a woman who was 100% heterosexual, except my mom, but she's butch and loves harleys and playing baseball and Bruce Springsteen and rocking out.

We're all fucking queer, and that's about all there is to that. If someone says they're not gay, I just agree. People have a right to self-identify however they want.

Thanks Phil, that was really cool. I've always self identified as Gay, just because I only sleep with guys, but I've never felt "Gay". I guess you know what I mean. But I love gay people, in all their forms, so there you go.

I don't identify as MSM. Not sure why, but it just feels wrong. Probably because I can seriously fall in love with another guy, in every way that is possible. MSM doesn't seem to encompass all that I feel.

I like your idea. NO labels. We are what we are. This was a cool thread, thank you very much for Gloria, for starting it. Although I think it went in a different direction?

Ha, thanks, Cooler, not at all the direction I was expecting, I confess, but wow I've enjoyed reading all the comments. I guess what I love most of all is knowing how many people are out there really digging deep into the big identity cluster fuck that is human sexuality.

RE: Phil's comment about the dif. between science and politics. Politically, philosophically, morally, and personally I agree with all the comments about labels. I also believe everyone has the right to express identity as they wish.

Politically, I think it would be a milestone to do away with all labels. Not to come up with new, ever-narrowing definitions but use a term like "queer".to unite all sex-positive thinkers across all lines, for example. When you really get to know people and how they actually live you usually discover as many exceptions as rules, as many quirks and anomalies as so-called "normal" traits, anyway. Labels are just a way for clinicians to categorize people.

But, there, alas, is the petard upon which I am hoist, cuz, buddy, I'm a clinician. When I see two men having sex together, I don't parse it down into all the particulars: I use the terms bi or gay as short-hand to describe a sexual behavior, and save the deep level of self-definition until I've actually had the time to know and understand how someone lives (v. how they present to the world).

In the case of these two guys, their saying "we're straight" raised a red flag for me. Isn't that just another way of saying "we're not gay"? Why say anything at all? Think of it from the POV of a potential female partner: are they inviting her in because they really want a woman -- or because they need a woman there to prove to themselves that they are straight?

In plenty of cases, I'd agree with you that jumping up and saying "we're straight" raises a red flag -- ye doth protest too much.

However, in the context of a hookup, it can really be worth mentioning. Having read a bunch of CL ads around group sex dynamics, I'd assume that they're mentioning it to let any potential partners know what kind of dynamic and expectations they're walking into. MM seeking F threeways almost always have to mention whether or not there will be sexual contact between the two men or not -- some women want to get gang banged but would be horrified if the men started fucking each other, other women would be disappointed if they didn't.

So you say that you think gay or bi and then they are wanting something with another male and a female and you decide to call them gay. First, pretty rude to decide that you know more about their sexuality and identity than they do themselves. Second, you see some wanting to do something with two genders and decide gay rather than bi. If you are a clinician gods protect us from your clinical practice.

What's wrong with calling someone gay? You act like it's a horrible insult. Maybe you should look into your own heart and ask why it upsets you so much when someone uses a term in a way you wouldn't use it.

It's a touchy subject for bi people who are frequently invisibilized, told we don't exist, are just on the fence, need to pick a team, are just confused, too indiscriminate, just going through a phase, or closet cases and really gay.

There's nothing wrong with being called gay -- when that's what you are. Just like there's nothing wrong with being called a woman -- if you are one. But if you call a trans man a woman (or call bi folks gay), be prepared for some negative reactions.

Well the first thing wrong is that you called someone gay who does not identify as such and in fact identified specifically in the ad as straight. How is that any different from when a parent tells a kid that he or she is confused or going through a phase. How is that any different from when the parents of a bi kid go to a PFLAG meeting to authoritatively have it explained to them that their kid is really gay and not ready to admit it. Or what is the source of your special authority to be able to do this for others. I've looked into my heart and what I found was respect for how another person identifies. What I did not find was a willingness to decide what or who another person is for that person. Look into your own heart and ask why you show the profound disrespect to these two people that you have shown. I myself work with kids and I have to be open to them informing me that their sexuality or gender is not as it may appear (though they always seem surprised that I already had it figured out). Because of my clear openness several kids and parents have turned to me for support when these issues arise. Just last weekend one of my students started taking the first steps on his coming out process in a way that nobody else on the staff or in the band would notice but that he just seems to know will get through to me and my daughter. I am honored that he is confident enough that the atmosphere is safe to start exploring this. So should I have taken your approach and turned to a 13 year old boy and his buddy of 14 and just said "yes GSA and Gay Straight alliance are the same thing and those little safe zone stickers on the doors do mean that the gay kids are ok there and BTW you should join the GSA next year in HS because you are obviously not straight and he should join too, same reason" I don't think so maybe I'll stick with the open and accepting approach which let these two start being relaxed enough to just kinda explore being themselves. And I'll make sure they are not rooming together on the band trip next weekend because that could be awkward for them.

What's wrong with calling someone gay? You act like it's a horrible insult. Maybe you should look into your own heart and ask why it upsets you so much when someone uses a term in a way you wouldn't use it.

Pointing out bi erasure is not making a value judgment on the term gay. Maybe you could look in your own heart and consider why you needed to publicly mock these guys for using a label in a way that you wouldn't use it. Your assertion that they might be looking for a woman to "prove that they are straight" is baseless and ignores the possibility that they want to have sex with more than one gender because they might enjoy it.

You know what, Dr. Brame, I am totally 100% sure that you made that statement in good faith and good humor, and I want to let you know that I was not offended in the least by it, nor do I think there is much reason to take offense.

I think that the first few comments added in the light of doing a little clarification and educating were respectful and useful. I think the longer this goes, it gets more and more mean-spirited.

I thought this piece was appropriate and a little funny too. I agree that these guys are very likely really straight, but I don't take this as your effort to tell anyone they can't identify as they see fit.

I think its high time we all lay off a bit, and appreciate this post for what it is--a funny little anecdote, and an opportunity to civilly and intelligently discuss the subject of self-identification.